Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I. Did the trial judge err when he excluded the testimony of Appellant, Shawn Austin's psychological expert?
II. Did the trial judge err when he informed the jury, "That's all the transcripts and reading you'll receive"?
III. Did the trial judge err when he informed the jury, "There is no physical evidence; accordingly I don't want to waste your time or anyone else's if you are at an impasse"?
IV. Was there evidence and testimony sufficient to find Mr. Austin guilty of the criminal charge of gross sexual imposition?
POST CONVICTION ISSUE:
V. Was Mr. Austin's trial counsel ineffective, and with effective assistance of counsel, would the result of the trial been different?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Did the trial court properly prohibit the defendant's psychological witness from testifying that the defendant only had an eleven percent (11%) chance of sexually molesting again?
II. Whether the trial court committed error when after the jury received all the requested testimony in their entirety they were told "that's all the transcripts and reading you'll receive"?
III. Whether the trial court committed error when it checked with the jury on the status of the
deliberations?
IV. Whether sufficient evidence existed to support the jury's verdict of guilty?
V. Whether the defendant's trial attorney was constitutionally ineffective, and whether any issues
relating to ineffectiveness would have made for a different result at trial?